On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:47:34 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-03-29 11:39, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>> Remember? No?
> >>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> >>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> >>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of turning
> >>>>> left from the right lane.
> >>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> >>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think that the
> >>>>> other driver was not going to exit with us when we turned right in
> >>>>> our lane to go straight.
> >>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the right lane before
> >>>> she ever got to the roundabout.
> >>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed into our
> >>>>> right front fender.
> >>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> >>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even possible.
> >> Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at least a
> >> couple of tellings.
> >
> > By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest email. LOL
> Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.
>
> Come to Vancouver...
>
> ...and we'll discuss it.

So, it's true! Who's stalking? I stumbled across that easily discovered item based on your bragging about people wanting to live in Vancouver causing exorbitant housing costs. Interesting that your housing prices have fallen over the last year. But so has mine. You are right though, housing is expensive there, even compared to some small towns elsewhere in BC.

Housing is so expensive there that the grandson of a friend just moved back here after a few years in Vancouver. Based on their income and the arrival of a first child they could simply not afford the rent to upgrade to a small 2 bedroom apartment similar to your tiny condo, but slightly larger. Plus, the cost of Vancouver childcare. Then again, a niece just moved back to the Midwest from LA for exactly the same reason.

How about email discussion? We are planning a September trip to western Canada, including Vancouver. I value my life, what's left of it. I will not be looking you up, or even giving out any details on the trip if it happens. You are one sick, potentially violent, puppy.

Be assured I'll never share. You can, I will not.

On 2023-04-05 05:01, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-03-29 11:38, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop
>>>>>>>>>>> lying about what you cannot even know.
>>>>>>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making
>>>>>>>>>> assumptions about things "you cannot even know"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What
>>>>>>>>> proof do you have that we were slower than prevailing
>>>>>>>>> traffic?
>>>>>>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car
>>>>>>>> coming up from behind you and getting to slightly ahead
>>>>>>>> of you at the time of the accident.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing
>>>>>>>> traffic", Little Shit.
>>>>>> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster
>>>>>> than you, then you are slower.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
>>>>>>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up
>>>>>>>>> traffic behind us.
>>>>>>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation
>>>>>>>> of the law.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were
>>>>>>>>> obligated to move to the right lane you lying little
>>>>>>>>> shit?
>>>>>>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana
>>>>>>>> lawyer's interpretation of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was
>>>>>>>>> not driving aggressively.
>>>>>>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident
>>>>>>>> report, you Lying Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash
>>>>>>>> a result of aggressive driving", and the officer
>>>>>>>> answered a flat "NO".'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
>>>>>> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no
>>>>>>>>> "requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could
>>>>>>>>> not say either way, you lying little shit.
>>>>>>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding
>>>>>>>> AND aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers
>>>>>>>> like you can do'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember? No?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
>>>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
>>>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
>>>>>>> turning left from the right lane.
>>>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
>>>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
>>>>>>> that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
>>>>>>> we turned right in our lane to go straight.
>>>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
>>>>>> right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
>>>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
>>>>>>> into our right front fender.
>>>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
>>>>> there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
>>>>> possible.
>>>> I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving
>>>> was not a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim
>>>> was an example of what aggressive driving does, you Lying
>>>> Little Shit.
>>>>
>>>> The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
>>>>
>>>> Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you.
>>>> Definitely.
>>>>
>>>> But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened
>>>> if your wife had been in the right lane.
>>>>
>>>> I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still
>>>> move to the right-hand lane whenever I can.
>>>
>>> Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other
>>> driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
>> You are lying.
>>
>> The form required him to answer and he answered "No".
>>
>> But a liar is who you are.
>
> He did not check any box for aggressive driving. As I have stated
> many times, he did not see the accident. The only box he checked for
> the other driver was improper lane use. That was information obtained
> from the other driver.

It's not actually a check box...

....but he did answer the question:

"Was this crash the result of aggressive driving?"

And the typed answer was: "NO".

First page of the report, right hand column, last item above the box for
the first "Owner's Name and Address"...

....you little shit.

>
> Anyway, you were not there. You did not see the traffic. You have
> never seen the actual street. You have no idea as to whether or not
> we were even the slowest moving vehicle in that stream. Therefore,
> you cannot say whether or not "move to the right" was required.

You didn't NEED to be slowEST.

You were clearly slowerER than the other car in this accident.

>
> Keep insisting it was, but you are wrong. End of discussion for my
> part. You can have the last reply.

Ironic.

On 2023-04-05 05:24, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:47:34 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-03-29 11:39, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>> Remember? No?
>>>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
>>>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
>>>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
>>>>>>> turning left from the right lane.
>>>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
>>>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
>>>>>>> that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
>>>>>>> we turned right in our lane to go straight.
>>>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
>>>>>> right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
>>>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
>>>>>>> into our right front fender.
>>>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
>>>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
>>>>> there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
>>>>> possible.
>>>> Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at
>>>> least a couple of tellings.
>>>
>>> By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest
>>> email. LOL
>> Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.
>>
>> Come to Vancouver...
>>
>> ...and we'll discuss it.
>
> So, it's true! Who's stalking? I stumbled across that easily
> discovered item based on your bragging about people wanting to live
> in Vancouver causing exorbitant housing costs. Interesting that your
> housing prices have fallen over the last year. But so has mine. You
> are right though, housing is expensive there, even compared to some
> small towns elsewhere in BC.
>
> Housing is so expensive there that the grandson of a friend just
> moved back here after a few years in Vancouver. Based on their income
> and the arrival of a first child they could simply not afford the
> rent to upgrade to a small 2 bedroom apartment similar to your tiny
> condo, but slightly larger. Plus, the cost of Vancouver childcare.
> Then again, a niece just moved back to the Midwest from LA for
> exactly the same reason.
>
> How about email discussion? We are planning a September trip to
> western Canada, including Vancouver. I value my life, what's left of
> it. I will not be looking you up, or even giving out any details on
> the trip if it happens. You are one sick, potentially violent,
> puppy.
>
> Be assured I'll never share. You can, I will not.

Interesting you infer violence from a simple offer to discuss something.

It says a lot more about you than it does about me, little shit.

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:27:32 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-04-05 05:01, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-03-29 11:38, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop
> >>>>>>>>>>> lying about what you cannot even know.
> >>>>>>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making
> >>>>>>>>>> assumptions about things "you cannot even know"?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What
> >>>>>>>>> proof do you have that we were slower than prevailing
> >>>>>>>>> traffic?
> >>>>>>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car
> >>>>>>>> coming up from behind you and getting to slightly ahead
> >>>>>>>> of you at the time of the accident.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing
> >>>>>>>> traffic", Little Shit.
> >>>>>> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster
> >>>>>> than you, then you are slower.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
> >>>>>>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up
> >>>>>>>>> traffic behind us.
> >>>>>>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation
> >>>>>>>> of the law.
> >>>>>>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were
> >>>>>>>>> obligated to move to the right lane you lying little
> >>>>>>>>> shit?
> >>>>>>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana
> >>>>>>>> lawyer's interpretation of it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was
> >>>>>>>>> not driving aggressively.
> >>>>>>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident
> >>>>>>>> report, you Lying Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash
> >>>>>>>> a result of aggressive driving", and the officer
> >>>>>>>> answered a flat "NO".'
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
> >>>>>> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no
> >>>>>>>>> "requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could
> >>>>>>>>> not say either way, you lying little shit.
> >>>>>>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding
> >>>>>>>> AND aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers
> >>>>>>>> like you can do'
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Remember? No?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> >>>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> >>>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
> >>>>>>> turning left from the right lane.
> >>>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
> >>>>>>> that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
> >>>>>>> we turned right in our lane to go straight.
> >>>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
> >>>>>> right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
> >>>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
> >>>>>>> into our right front fender.
> >>>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
> >>>>> there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
> >>>>> possible.
> >>>> I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving
> >>>> was not a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim
> >>>> was an example of what aggressive driving does, you Lying
> >>>> Little Shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you.
> >>>> Definitely.
> >>>>
> >>>> But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened
> >>>> if your wife had been in the right lane.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still
> >>>> move to the right-hand lane whenever I can.
> >>>
> >>> Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other
> >>> driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
> >> You are lying.
> >>
> >> The form required him to answer and he answered "No".
> >>
> >> But a liar is who you are.
> >
> > He did not check any box for aggressive driving. As I have stated
> > many times, he did not see the accident. The only box he checked for
> > the other driver was improper lane use. That was information obtained
> > from the other driver.
> It's not actually a check box...
>
> ...but he did answer the question:
>
> "Was this crash the result of aggressive driving?"
>
> And the typed answer was: "NO".
>
> First page of the report, right hand column, last item above the box for
> the first "Owner's Name and Address"...
>
> ...you little shit.
> >
> > Anyway, you were not there. You did not see the traffic. You have
> > never seen the actual street. You have no idea as to whether or not
> > we were even the slowest moving vehicle in that stream. Therefore,
> > you cannot say whether or not "move to the right" was required.
>
> You didn't NEED to be slowEST.
>
> You were clearly slowerER than the other car in this accident.

Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic circle.
That makes for there being at least two (2) faster vehicles.

In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.

-hh

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-04-05 05:24, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:47:34 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-03-29 11:39, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Remember? No?
> >>>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> >>>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> >>>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
> >>>>>>> turning left from the right lane.
> >>>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
> >>>>>>> that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
> >>>>>>> we turned right in our lane to go straight.
> >>>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
> >>>>>> right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
> >>>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
> >>>>>>> into our right front fender.
> >>>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> >>>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
> >>>>> there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
> >>>>> possible.
> >>>> Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where on at
> >>>> least a couple of tellings.
> >>>
> >>> By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest
> >>> email. LOL
> >> Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.
> >>
> >> Come to Vancouver...
> >>
> >> ...and we'll discuss it.
> >
> > So, it's true! Who's stalking? I stumbled across that easily
> > discovered item based on your bragging about people wanting to live
> > in Vancouver causing exorbitant housing costs. Interesting that your
> > housing prices have fallen over the last year. But so has mine. You
> > are right though, housing is expensive there, even compared to some
> > small towns elsewhere in BC.
> >
> > Housing is so expensive there that the grandson of a friend just
> > moved back here after a few years in Vancouver. Based on their income
> > and the arrival of a first child they could simply not afford the
> > rent to upgrade to a small 2 bedroom apartment similar to your tiny
> > condo, but slightly larger. Plus, the cost of Vancouver childcare.
> > Then again, a niece just moved back to the Midwest from LA for
> > exactly the same reason.
> >
> > How about email discussion? We are planning a September trip to
> > western Canada, including Vancouver. I value my life, what's left of
> > it. I will not be looking you up, or even giving out any details on
> > the trip if it happens. You are one sick, potentially violent,
> > puppy.
> >
> > Be assured I'll never share. You can, I will not.
> Interesting you infer violence from a simple offer to discuss something.
>
> It says a lot more about you than it does about me, little shit.

Interesting that:

You took someting to a social media platform when a private email would have worked. Apparently denigration trumps privacy. Noted.

You want to confront me in person, not via email. Hmmmmm.

Here is a link to the accident report, driver info redacted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z9uIMx4He5cRWXodQfj4Q0BEhyh1zMQc/view?usp=share_link

Please find any accident cause for us, driver #2, on page 1 of the report. BTW, the "no" answer for aggressive driving applies to both drivers.

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 1:14:47 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:27:32 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> > On 2023-04-05 05:01, Thomas E. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> > >> On 2023-03-29 11:38, Thomas E. wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> > >>>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:46:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 2023-03-14 09:25, Thomas E. wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> It's you who is testifying without proof. Stop
> > >>>>>>>>>>> lying about what you cannot even know.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Back at ya, Lying Little Shit!
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> How many lies have you told about me by making
> > >>>>>>>>>> assumptions about things "you cannot even know"?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I was also talking about outside the roundabout! What
> > >>>>>>>>> proof do you have that we were slower than prevailing
> > >>>>>>>>> traffic?
> > >>>>>>>> The fact that in your initial post you described a car
> > >>>>>>>> coming up from behind you and getting to slightly ahead
> > >>>>>>>> of you at the time of the accident.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> And the law doesn't say "slower than prevailing
> > >>>>>>>> traffic", Little Shit.
> > >>>>>> Nothing to say, Little Shit?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Can't figure out that if someone behind you is going faster
> > >>>>>> than you, then you are slower.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Just another carefully crafted lie by you.
> > >>>>>>>>> What proof do you have that we were holding up
> > >>>>>>>>> traffic behind us.
> > >>>>>>>> You don't have to hold up "traffic" to be in violation
> > >>>>>>>> of the law.
> > >>>>>>>>> Therefore what proof do you have that we were
> > >>>>>>>>> obligated to move to the right lane you lying little
> > >>>>>>>>> shit?
> > >>>>>>>> The law I showed you, complete with an Indiana
> > >>>>>>>> lawyer's interpretation of it.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The officer did not state that the other driver was
> > >>>>>>>>> not driving aggressively.
> > >>>>>>>> Yes. He did. He actually answered NO on the accident
> > >>>>>>>> report, you Lying Little Shit.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> '2. It has a specific box to check for "Was this crash
> > >>>>>>>> a result of aggressive driving", and the officer
> > >>>>>>>> answered a flat "NO".'
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> He was REQUIRED to answer that question.
> > >>>>>> What a pussy you are, Little Shit.
> > >>>>>>>>> He did not state that she was either. There was no
> > >>>>>>>>> "requirement". He did not see the behavior, he could
> > >>>>>>>>> not say either way, you lying little shit.
> > >>>>>>>> He also didn't say she was speeding...
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> ...but you used that accident as an example of speeding
> > >>>>>>>> AND aggressive driving, you Lying Little Shit:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 'let me show you what reckless and aggressive drivers
> > >>>>>>>> like you can do'
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Remember? No?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
> > >>>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
> > >>>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the intention of
> > >>>>>>> turning left from the right lane.
> > >>>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
> > >>>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to think
> > >>>>>>> that the other driver was not going to exit with us when
> > >>>>>>> we turned right in our lane to go straight.
> > >>>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
> > >>>>>> right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
> > >>>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not rammed
> > >>>>>>> into our right front fender.
> > >>>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were not
> > >>>>> there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable or even
> > >>>>> possible.
> > >>>> I know that the officer explicitly said that aggressive driving
> > >>>> was not a factor in this accident that you were trying to claim
> > >>>> was an example of what aggressive driving does, you Lying
> > >>>> Little Shit.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The fact of the matter is that this was STUPID driving.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Mostly stupid on the part of the the driver who hit you.
> > >>>> Definitely.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But also stupid in that the accident would never have happened
> > >>>> if your wife had been in the right lane.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I do drive faster than many people on the road, but I still
> > >>>> move to the right-hand lane whenever I can.
> > >>>
> > >>> Reply # 2 - The officer did not say anything about the other
> > >>> driver's aggressive driving or lack thereof.
> > >> You are lying.
> > >>
> > >> The form required him to answer and he answered "No".
> > >>
> > >> But a liar is who you are.
> > >
> > > He did not check any box for aggressive driving. As I have stated
> > > many times, he did not see the accident. The only box he checked for
> > > the other driver was improper lane use. That was information obtained
> > > from the other driver.
> > It's not actually a check box...
> >
> > ...but he did answer the question:
> >
> > "Was this crash the result of aggressive driving?"
> >
> > And the typed answer was: "NO".
> >
> > First page of the report, right hand column, last item above the box for
> > the first "Owner's Name and Address"...
> >
> > ...you little shit.
> > >
> > > Anyway, you were not there. You did not see the traffic. You have
> > > never seen the actual street. You have no idea as to whether or not
> > > we were even the slowest moving vehicle in that stream. Therefore,
> > > you cannot say whether or not "move to the right" was required.
> >
> > You didn't NEED to be slowest.
> >
> > You were clearly slowerER than the other car in this accident.
> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
> the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic circle.
> That makes for there being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
>
> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
> which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
>
> -hh

On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:

>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
>> the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic
>> circle. That makes for there being at least two (2) faster
>> vehicles.
>>
>> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
>> which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
>>
>> -hh
>
> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so
> quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And,
> before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at
> the first roundabout.
>
> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced
> roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did
> what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
> wrong lane for a left turn.
>
> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane
> (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going
> straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several
> videos showing this. Here is one:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>
> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.

Couple of points, Little Shit.

1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd been where
she was supposed to be this accident would never have happened. You
can't turn left into someone who is on your right.

2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in ONCE SHE
REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
the roundabout.

3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road
gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts.

And 4:

'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'

On 2023-04-05 11:01, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-04-05 05:24, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 2:47:34 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-03-29 11:39, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 2:32:41 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-03-14 10:37, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Remember? No?
>>>>>>>>> I'll not argue because none of that matters.
>>>>>>>> And yet here you are... ...arguing.
>>>>>>>>> The other driver entered the circle with the
>>>>>>>>> intention of turning left from the right lane.
>>>>>>>> Something I never denied, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>> My wife is not a mind reader. She had no reason to
>>>>>>>>> think that the other driver was not going to exit
>>>>>>>>> with us when we turned right in our lane to go
>>>>>>>>> straight.
>>>>>>>> Something utterly irrelevant to her not driving in the
>>>>>>>> right lane before she ever got to the roundabout.
>>>>>>>>> The other driver should have turned with us, not
>>>>>>>>> rammed into our right front fender.
>>>>>>>> Something I never disputed, Little Shit.
>>>>>>> Obfuscation and deflection do not win, loser. You were
>>>>>>> not there, and do not know if a lane shift was advisable
>>>>>>> or even possible.
>>>>>> Oh, and I know you changed your story about who was where
>>>>>> on at least a couple of tellings.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, I notice that you have not replied to my latest
>>>>> email. LOL
>>>> Good of you to call out your stalking, you lying Little Shit.
>>>>
>>>> Come to Vancouver...
>>>>
>>>> ...and we'll discuss it.
>>>
>>> So, it's true! Who's stalking? I stumbled across that easily
>>> discovered item based on your bragging about people wanting to
>>> live in Vancouver causing exorbitant housing costs. Interesting
>>> that your housing prices have fallen over the last year. But so
>>> has mine. You are right though, housing is expensive there, even
>>> compared to some small towns elsewhere in BC.
>>>
>>> Housing is so expensive there that the grandson of a friend just
>>> moved back here after a few years in Vancouver. Based on their
>>> income and the arrival of a first child they could simply not
>>> afford the rent to upgrade to a small 2 bedroom apartment similar
>>> to your tiny condo, but slightly larger. Plus, the cost of
>>> Vancouver childcare. Then again, a niece just moved back to the
>>> Midwest from LA for exactly the same reason.
>>>
>>> How about email discussion? We are planning a September trip to
>>> western Canada, including Vancouver. I value my life, what's left
>>> of it. I will not be looking you up, or even giving out any
>>> details on the trip if it happens. You are one sick, potentially
>>> violent, puppy.
>>>
>>> Be assured I'll never share. You can, I will not.
>> Interesting you infer violence from a simple offer to discuss
>> something.
>>
>> It says a lot more about you than it does about me, little shit.
>
> Interesting that:
>
> You took someting to a social media platform when a private email
> would have worked. Apparently denigration trumps privacy. Noted.

Acknowledging an email impacts privacy... ...how exactly.

>
> You want to confront me in person, not via email. Hmmmmm.
>
> Here is a link to the accident report, driver info redacted.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z9uIMx4He5cRWXodQfj4Q0BEhyh1zMQc/view?usp=share_link
>
> Please find any accident cause for us, driver #2, on page 1 of the
> report. BTW, the "no" answer for aggressive driving applies to both
> drivers.

Please find where I ever said the conclusion was only for one of the two
drivers.

I can find lots of places where you have claimed there was no such
determination made at all.

Since you had the accident report all along, that makes every single
time a deliberate lie...

....you little shit.

And finally:

'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>
>
> >> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
> >> the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic
> >> circle. That makes for there being at least two (2) faster
> >> vehicles.
> >>
> >> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
> >> which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
> >>
> >> -hh
> >
> > Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so
> > quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And,
> > before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at
> > the first roundabout.
> >
> > This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced
> > roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did
> > what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
> > wrong lane for a left turn.
> >
> > Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane
> > (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going
> > straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several
> > videos showing this. Here is one:
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
> >
> > Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>
> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd been where
> she was supposed to be this accident would never have happened. You
> can't turn left into someone who is on your right.
>
> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in ONCE SHE
> REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
> the roundabout.
>
> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road
> gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts.
>
> And 4:
>
> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'

No, no and no. She could not have been in the right lane when the street gained a second lane. At that point the second lane is marked "right turn only" onto a side street. Also, how do you know that we were the slowest vehicle once past that right turn lane? You don't, and I don't remember either. But with the first roundabout coming up quickly it's very possible that vehicles turning right there were slowing to make the turn. Also, in this community, as repeatedly shown in videos, use either lane to go straight when those lanes are so designated.

On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
>>>> the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic
>>>> circle. That makes for there being at least two (2) faster
>>>> vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
>>>> which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
>>>>
>>>> -hh
>>>
>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so
>>> quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And,
>>> before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at
>>> the first roundabout.
>>>
>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced
>>> roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did
>>> what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
>>> wrong lane for a left turn.
>>>
>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane
>>> (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going
>>> straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several
>>> videos showing this. Here is one:
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>>>
>>> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>>
>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd been where
>> she was supposed to be this accident would never have happened. You
>> can't turn left into someone who is on your right.
>>
>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in ONCE SHE
>> REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
>> the roundabout.
>>
>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road
>> gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts.
>>
>> And 4:
>>
>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
>
> No, no and no. ...

'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were passed on
> >>>> the right by another driver, prior to getting to the traffic
> >>>> circle. That makes for there being at least two (2) faster
> >>>> vehicles.
> >>>>
> >>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane sitter",
> >>>> which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
> >>>>
> >>>> -hh
> >>>
> >>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers came up so
> >>> quick that moving to the right might have caused an accident. And,
> >>> before that drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns at
> >>> the first roundabout.
> >>>
> >>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely spaced
> >>> roundabouts with limited time to make any lane decisions. She did
> >>> what she thought was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
> >>> wrong lane for a left turn.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a 4 lane
> >>> (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there when going
> >>> straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I have made several
> >>> videos showing this. Here is one:
> >>>
> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
> >>>
> >>> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
> >> Couple of points, Little Shit.
> >>
> >> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd been where
> >> she was supposed to be this accident would never have happened. You
> >> can't turn left into someone who is on your right.
> >>
> >> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in ONCE SHE
> >> REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
> >> the roundabout.
> >>
> >> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road
> >> gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts.
> >>
> >> And 4:
> >>
> >> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
> >
> > No, no and no. ...

Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.

From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane there. She could not move to the right the moment the street widened.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link

Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as the road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at Springmill.

From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of the side street heading east and the very limited distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight here. Also note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link

After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?

Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before the first of the two roundabouts."

On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were
>>>>>> passed on the right by another driver, prior to getting to
>>>>>> the traffic circle. That makes for there being at least two
>>>>>> (2) faster vehicles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane
>>>>>> sitter", which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except
>>>>>> to Pass" reg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers
>>>>> came up so quick that moving to the right might have caused
>>>>> an accident. And, before that drivers in front of us had
>>>>> slowed to make right turns at the first roundabout.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely
>>>>> spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any lane
>>>>> decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not knowing
>>>>> that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left turn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a
>>>>> 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there
>>>>> when going straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I
>>>>> have made several videos showing this. Here is one:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>>>>
>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd
>>>> been where she was supposed to be this accident would never
>>>> have happened. You can't turn left into someone who is on your
>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in
>>>> ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on
>>>> the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
>>>>
>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the
>>>> road gained a second lane before the first of the two
>>>> roundabouts.
>>>>
>>>> And 4:
>>>>
>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
>>>
>>> No, no and no. ...
>
> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge of
> the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
>
> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Springmill.
> Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2 lanes
> eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane there.
> She could not move to the right the moment the street widened.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link

And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
where she could have moved right.

>
> Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for
> straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as the
> road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start to
> slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
> Springmill.

A new "detail"!

>
> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois, the
> accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street exits
> the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of the
> side street heading east and the very limited distance between
> Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the left lane
> exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
> here. Also note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either
> lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no
> way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this intersection, we
> were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31, the next
> intersection, for our turn northeast.

How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving right...

....when the road had been single lane?

Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?

>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
>
> After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia
> repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and was
> diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?
>
> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the right
> lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before the first
> of the two roundabouts."

She should have.

After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto Temple
Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a dotted line between them.

After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your wife was
holding up must have been BEHIND her.

And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and being
aggressive...

....and you've proven neither.

All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they were
> >>>>>> passed on the right by another driver, prior to getting to
> >>>>>> the traffic circle. That makes for there being at least two
> >>>>>> (2) faster vehicles.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left lane
> >>>>>> sitter", which runs afoul of our State's "Keep Right Except
> >>>>>> to Pass" reg.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those drivers
> >>>>> came up so quick that moving to the right might have caused
> >>>>> an accident. And, before that drivers in front of us had
> >>>>> slowed to make right turns at the first roundabout.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2 closely
> >>>>> spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any lane
> >>>>> decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not knowing
> >>>>> that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left turn.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get in a
> >>>>> 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay there
> >>>>> when going straight on. What she did is normal behavior. I
> >>>>> have made several videos showing this. Here is one:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
> >>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if she'd
> >>>> been where she was supposed to be this accident would never
> >>>> have happened. You can't turn left into someone who is on your
> >>>> right.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been in
> >>>> ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong lane on
> >>>> the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment the
> >>>> road gained a second lane before the first of the two
> >>>> roundabouts.
> >>>>
> >>>> And 4:
> >>>>
> >>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last reply.'
> >>>
> >>> No, no and no. ...
> >
> > Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge of
> > the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
> >
> > From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Springmill.
> > Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2 lanes
> > eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane there.
> > She could not move to the right the moment the street widened.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
> And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
> where she could have moved right.
> >
> > Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for
> > straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as the
> > road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start to
> > slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
> > Springmill.
> A new "detail"!
> >
> > From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois, the
> > accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street exits
> > the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of the
> > side street heading east and the very limited distance between
> > Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the left lane
> > exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
> > here. Also note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either
> > lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no
> > way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this intersection, we
> > were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31, the next
> > intersection, for our turn northeast.
> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving right...
>
> ...when the road had been single lane?
>
> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
> >
> > After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
> > north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia
> > repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and was
> > diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?
> >
> > Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the right
> > lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before the first
> > of the two roundabouts."
> She should have.
>
> After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto Temple
> Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a dotted line between them.
>
> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your wife was
> holding up must have been BEHIND her.
>
> And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and being
> aggressive...
>
> ...and you've proven neither.
>
> All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.

I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or being aggressive, but she was.

You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.

As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is available for straight on and that's what we did. The right lane is for right turns and straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.

The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets come September and will be interested in observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we see here in Carmel

Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or in Canada.

On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they
>>>>>>>> were passed on the right by another driver, prior to
>>>>>>>> getting to the traffic circle. That makes for there
>>>>>>>> being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left
>>>>>>>> lane sitter", which runs afoul of our State's "Keep
>>>>>>>> Right Except to Pass" reg.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those
>>>>>>> drivers came up so quick that moving to the right might
>>>>>>> have caused an accident. And, before that drivers in
>>>>>>> front of us had slowed to make right turns at the first
>>>>>>> roundabout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2
>>>>>>> closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any
>>>>>>> lane decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not
>>>>>>> knowing that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left
>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get
>>>>>>> in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay
>>>>>>> there when going straight on. What she did is normal
>>>>>>> behavior. I have made several videos showing this. Here
>>>>>>> is one:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if
>>>>>> she'd been where she was supposed to be this accident would
>>>>>> never have happened. You can't turn left into someone who
>>>>>> is on your right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been
>>>>>> in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong
>>>>>> lane on the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment
>>>>>> the road gained a second lane before the first of the two
>>>>>> roundabouts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And 4:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last
>>>>>> reply.'
>>>>>
>>>>> No, no and no. ...
>>>
>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge
>>> of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
>>>
>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
>>> Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2
>>> lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane
>>> there. She could not move to the right the moment the street
>>> widened.
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
>>
>>>
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
>> where she could have moved right.
>>>
>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for
>>> straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as
>>> the road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start
>>> to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
>>> Springmill.
>> A new "detail"!
>>>
>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois,
>>> the accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street
>>> exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling
>>> out of the side street heading east and the very limited distance
>>> between Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the
>>> left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic,
>>> a common sight here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
>>> indicating that either lane is for straight through traffic. In
>>> heavy traffic there is no way to safely move to the right lane
>>> here. Past this intersection, we were already in the left turn
>>> lane for U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving
>> right...
>>
>> ...when the road had been single lane?
>>
>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
>>>
>>>
>>>
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia
>>> repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and
>>> was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?
>>>
>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the
>>> right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before
>>> the first of the two roundabouts."
>> She should have.
>>
>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto
>> Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a dotted
>> line between them.
>>
>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your wife
>> was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
>>
>> And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and
>> being aggressive...
>>
>> ...and you've proven neither.
>>
>> All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
>
> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or
> being aggressive, but she was.

Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...

....and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.

>
> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street
> transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.

I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.

>
> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In heavy
> traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane empty and
> create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan, it's not
> practical or necessary. The left lane is available for straight on
> and that's what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
> straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The other
> driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
>

So you should leave the right lane empty instead?

> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local traffic
> does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on the right
> except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver does either.
> I'll likely be driving on your streets come September and will be
> interested in observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
> last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we
> see here in Carmel

"Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.

>
> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or
> in Canada.

But I knew the law...

....and you didn't.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that they
> >>>>>>>> were passed on the right by another driver, prior to
> >>>>>>>> getting to the traffic circle. That makes for there
> >>>>>>>> being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a "left
> >>>>>>>> lane sitter", which runs afoul of our State's "Keep
> >>>>>>>> Right Except to Pass" reg.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those
> >>>>>>> drivers came up so quick that moving to the right might
> >>>>>>> have caused an accident. And, before that drivers in
> >>>>>>> front of us had slowed to make right turns at the first
> >>>>>>> roundabout.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2
> >>>>>>> closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make any
> >>>>>>> lane decisions. She did what she thought was safest, not
> >>>>>>> knowing that a driver was in the wrong lane for a left
> >>>>>>> turn.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to get
> >>>>>>> in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane and stay
> >>>>>>> there when going straight on. What she did is normal
> >>>>>>> behavior. I have made several videos showing this. Here
> >>>>>>> is one:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>
> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
> >>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if
> >>>>>> she'd been where she was supposed to be this accident would
> >>>>>> never have happened. You can't turn left into someone who
> >>>>>> is on your right.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have been
> >>>>>> in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the wrong
> >>>>>> lane on the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the moment
> >>>>>> the road gained a second lane before the first of the two
> >>>>>> roundabouts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And 4:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last
> >>>>>> reply.'
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, no and no. ...
> >>>
> >>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand knowledge
> >>> of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
> >>>
> >>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
> >>> Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens to 2
> >>> lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn only lane
> >>> there. She could not move to the right the moment the street
> >>> widened.
> >>>
> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
> >>
> >>>
> And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
> >> where she could have moved right.
> >>>
> >>> Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is for
> >>> straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front you as
> >>> the road widens can shift to the right for a right turn and start
> >>> to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
> >>> Springmill.
> >> A new "detail"!
> >>>
> >>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and Illinois,
> >>> the accident site. Note the right turn only lane where the street
> >>> exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note the white car pulling
> >>> out of the side street heading east and the very limited distance
> >>> between Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the
> >>> left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light traffic,
> >>> a common sight here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
> >>> indicating that either lane is for straight through traffic. In
> >>> heavy traffic there is no way to safely move to the right lane
> >>> here. Past this intersection, we were already in the left turn
> >>> lane for U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
> >> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from moving
> >> right...
> >>
> >> ...when the road had been single lane?
> >>
> >> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
> >>>
> >>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
> >>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my hernia
> >>> repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the surgeon and
> >>> was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records too?
> >>>
> >>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in the
> >>> right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane before
> >>> the first of the two roundabouts."
> >> She should have.
> >>
> >> After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto
> >> Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a dotted
> >> line between them.
> >>
> >> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your wife
> >> was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
> >>
> >> And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and
> >> being aggressive...
> >>
> >> ...and you've proven neither.
> >>
> >> All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
> >
> > I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or
> > being aggressive, but she was.
> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
>
> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
> >
> > You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street
> > transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.
> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
> >
> > As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In heavy
> > traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane empty and
> > create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan, it's not
> > practical or necessary. The left lane is available for straight on
> > and that's what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
> > straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The other
> > driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
> >
> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
> > The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local traffic
> > does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on the right
> > except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver does either.
> > I'll likely be driving on your streets come September and will be
> > interested in observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
> > last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we
> > see here in Carmel
> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
> >
> > Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here or
> > in Canada.
> But I knew the law...
>
> ...and you didn't.

On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that
>>>>>>>>>> they were passed on the right by another driver,
>>>>>>>>>> prior to getting to the traffic circle. That makes
>>>>>>>>>> for there being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a
>>>>>>>>>> "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of our State's
>>>>>>>>>> "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those
>>>>>>>>> drivers came up so quick that moving to the right
>>>>>>>>> might have caused an accident. And, before that
>>>>>>>>> drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns
>>>>>>>>> at the first roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2
>>>>>>>>> closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make
>>>>>>>>> any lane decisions. She did what she thought was
>>>>>>>>> safest, not knowing that a driver was in the wrong
>>>>>>>>> lane for a left turn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to
>>>>>>>>> get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane
>>>>>>>>> and stay there when going straight on. What she did
>>>>>>>>> is normal behavior. I have made several videos
>>>>>>>>> showing this. Here is one:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
>>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if
>>>>>>>> she'd been where she was supposed to be this accident
>>>>>>>> would never have happened. You can't turn left into
>>>>>>>> someone who is on your right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have
>>>>>>>> been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the
>>>>>>>> wrong lane on the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the
>>>>>>>> moment the road gained a second lane before the first
>>>>>>>> of the two roundabouts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And 4:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last
>>>>>>>> reply.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand
>>>>> knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
>>>>> Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens
>>>>> to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn
>>>>> only lane there. She could not move to the right the moment
>>>>> the street widened.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
>>>> where she could have moved right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is
>>>>> for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front
>>>>> you as the road widens can shift to the right for a right
>>>>> turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing
>>>>> for a right turn at Springmill.
>>>> A new "detail"!
>>>>>
>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
>>>>> Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only lane
>>>>> where the street exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note
>>>>> the white car pulling out of the side street heading east and
>>>>> the very limited distance between Springmill and Illinois.
>>>>> Also note the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
>>>>> roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight here. Also
>>>>> note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either
>>>>> lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there
>>>>> is no way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this
>>>>> intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for U.S.
>>>>> 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
>>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from
>>>> moving right...
>>>>
>>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
>>>>
>>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
>>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my
>>>>> hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the
>>>>> surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records
>>>>> too?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in
>>>>> the right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane
>>>>> before the first of the two roundabouts."
>>>> She should have.
>>>>
>>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto
>>>> Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a
>>>> dotted line between them.
>>>>
>>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your
>>>> wife was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
>>>>
>>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and
>>>> being aggressive...
>>>>
>>>> ...and you've proven neither.
>>>>
>>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
>>>
>>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or
>>> being aggressive, but she was.
>> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
>>
>> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
>>>
>>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street
>>> transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.
>> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
>>>
>>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In
>>> heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane
>>> empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan,
>>> it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is available for
>>> straight on and that's what we did. The right lane is for right
>>> turns and straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth.
>>> The other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
>>>
>> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
>>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local
>>> traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on
>>> the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver
>>> does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets come
>>> September and will be interested in observing local driving
>>> customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and Ontario I
>>> expect to observe exactly what we see here in Carmel
>> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here
>>> or in Canada.
>> But I knew the law...
>>
>> ...and you didn't.
>
> Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty instead?"
>
> Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout signage,
> "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any very busy 4
> lane city street.

On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4, Alan
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that
> >>>>>>>>>> they were passed on the right by another driver,
> >>>>>>>>>> prior to getting to the traffic circle. That makes
> >>>>>>>>>> for there being at least two (2) faster vehicles.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a
> >>>>>>>>>> "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of our State's
> >>>>>>>>>> "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic. Those
> >>>>>>>>> drivers came up so quick that moving to the right
> >>>>>>>>> might have caused an accident. And, before that
> >>>>>>>>> drivers in front of us had slowed to make right turns
> >>>>>>>>> at the first roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was 2
> >>>>>>>>> closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to make
> >>>>>>>>> any lane decisions. She did what she thought was
> >>>>>>>>> safest, not knowing that a driver was in the wrong
> >>>>>>>>> lane for a left turn.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers to
> >>>>>>>>> get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's left lane
> >>>>>>>>> and stay there when going straight on. What she did
> >>>>>>>>> is normal behavior. I have made several videos
> >>>>>>>>> showing this. Here is one:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>
> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
> >>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and if
> >>>>>>>> she'd been where she was supposed to be this accident
> >>>>>>>> would never have happened. You can't turn left into
> >>>>>>>> someone who is on your right.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should have
> >>>>>>>> been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She was in the
> >>>>>>>> wrong lane on the road PRECEDING the roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the
> >>>>>>>> moment the road gained a second lane before the first
> >>>>>>>> of the two roundabouts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And 4:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the last
> >>>>>>>> reply.'
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand
> >>>>> knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
> >>>>> Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street widens
> >>>>> to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is right turn
> >>>>> only lane there. She could not move to the right the moment
> >>>>> the street widened.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>
> And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
> >>>> where she could have moved right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either lane is
> >>>>> for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in front
> >>>>> you as the road widens can shift to the right for a right
> >>>>> turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and slowing
> >>>>> for a right turn at Springmill.
> >>>> A new "detail"!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
> >>>>> Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only lane
> >>>>> where the street exits the Springmill roundabout. Also note
> >>>>> the white car pulling out of the side street heading east and
> >>>>> the very limited distance between Springmill and Illinois.
> >>>>> Also note the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
> >>>>> roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight here. Also
> >>>>> note the road signage for Illinois indicating that either
> >>>>> lane is for straight through traffic. In heavy traffic there
> >>>>> is no way to safely move to the right lane here. Past this
> >>>>> intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for U.S.
> >>>>> 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
> >>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from
> >>>> moving right...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
> >>>>
> >>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>
> After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
> >>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for my
> >>>>> hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I saw the
> >>>>> surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical records
> >>>>> too?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been in
> >>>>> the right lane from the moment the road gained a second lane
> >>>>> before the first of the two roundabouts."
> >>>> She should have.
> >>>>
> >>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting onto
> >>>> Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road with a
> >>>> dotted line between them.
> >>>>
> >>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic your
> >>>> wife was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
> >>>>
> >>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding and
> >>>> being aggressive...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and you've proven neither.
> >>>>
> >>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
> >>>
> >>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us or
> >>> being aggressive, but she was.
> >> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
> >>
> >> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
> >>>
> >>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the street
> >>> transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you lied.
> >> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
> >>>
> >>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that? In
> >>> heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left lane
> >>> empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane. No, Alan,
> >>> it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is available for
> >>> straight on and that's what we did. The right lane is for right
> >>> turns and straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth.
> >>> The other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
> >>>
> >> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
> >>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local
> >>> traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay on
> >>> the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that Vancouver
> >>> does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets come
> >>> September and will be interested in observing local driving
> >>> customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and Ontario I
> >>> expect to observe exactly what we see here in Carmel
> >> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs, here
> >>> or in Canada.
> >> But I knew the law...
> >>
> >> ...and you didn't.
> >
> > Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty instead?"
> >
> > Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout signage,
> > "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any very busy 4
> > lane city street.
> Except the road just went from one lane each way to two. Unless some
> people move to the right lane, that lane will remain empty?
>
> You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
> > Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or
> > roundabout, if you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right
> > turn from the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
> > left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
> Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+ yards before
> you GET to the roundabout.
> > Which
> > is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair costs, no
> > questions asked. Which is why the police report found no fault in my
> > wife's driving. You found a law and attempted to interpret it in a
> > situation where it does not apply. You are lying through your teeth,
> > and just want to harass.
> I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the accident
> as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
>
> What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife could have
> taken...
>
> Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only lane.
>
> ...that would have removed the conflict.
>
> And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof" of the
> dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
>
> ...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did the
> police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED that
> "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
>
> And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence has meaning
> (when it fails to mention that if your wife had moved to the right lane,
> there wouldn't have been an attempt to pass her on the right)...
>
> ...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean anything.

On 2023-05-07 12:56, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they were passed on the right by another
>>>>>>>>>>>> driver, prior to getting to the traffic circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That makes for there being at least two (2)
>>>>>>>>>>>> faster vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of our
>>>>>>>>>>>> State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>> Those drivers came up so quick that moving to the
>>>>>>>>>>> right might have caused an accident. And, before
>>>>>>>>>>> that drivers in front of us had slowed to make
>>>>>>>>>>> right turns at the first roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to
>>>>>>>>>>> make any lane decisions. She did what she thought
>>>>>>>>>>> was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong lane for a left turn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers
>>>>>>>>>>> to get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's
>>>>>>>>>>> left lane and stay there when going straight on.
>>>>>>>>>>> What she did is normal behavior. I have made
>>>>>>>>>>> several videos showing this. Here is one:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and
>>>>>>>>>> if she'd been where she was supposed to be this
>>>>>>>>>> accident would never have happened. You can't turn
>>>>>>>>>> left into someone who is on your right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
>>>>>>>>>> have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She
>>>>>>>>>> was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING the
>>>>>>>>>> roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the
>>>>>>>>>> moment the road gained a second lane before the
>>>>>>>>>> first of the two roundabouts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And 4:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the
>>>>>>>>>> last reply.'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand
>>>>>>> knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
>>>>>>> Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street
>>>>>>> widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is
>>>>>>> right turn only lane there. She could not move to the
>>>>>>> right the moment the street widened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
>>>>>> where she could have moved right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either lane
>>>>>>> is for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in
>>>>>>> front you as the road widens can shift to the right for a
>>>>>>> right turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and
>>>>>>> slowing for a right turn at Springmill.
>>>>>> A new "detail"!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
>>>>>>> Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only
>>>>>>> lane where the street exits the Springmill roundabout.
>>>>>>> Also note the white car pulling out of the side street
>>>>>>> heading east and the very limited distance between
>>>>>>> Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the
>>>>>>> left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light
>>>>>>> traffic, a common sight here. Also note the road signage
>>>>>>> for Illinois indicating that either lane is for straight
>>>>>>> through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to
>>>>>>> safely move to the right lane here. Past this
>>>>>>> intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for
>>>>>>> U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
>>>>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from
>>>>>> moving right...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
>>>>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for
>>>>>>> my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I
>>>>>>> saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical
>>>>>>> records too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been
>>>>>>> in the right lane from the moment the road gained a
>>>>>>> second lane before the first of the two roundabouts."
>>>>>> She should have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting
>>>>>> onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road
>>>>>> with a dotted line between them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic
>>>>>> your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding
>>>>>> and being aggressive...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and you've proven neither.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us
>>>>> or being aggressive, but she was.
>>>> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
>>>>
>>>> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the
>>>>> street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you
>>>>> lied.
>>>> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that?
>>>>> In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left
>>>>> lane empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane.
>>>>> No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is
>>>>> available for straight on and that's what we did. The right
>>>>> lane is for right turns and straight on. Clearly marked that
>>>>> way in Google Earth. The other driver did not obey the lane
>>>>> markings, we did.
>>>>>
>>>> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
>>>>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local
>>>>> traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay
>>>>> on the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that
>>>>> Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets
>>>>> come September and will be interested in observing local
>>>>> driving customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and
>>>>> Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we see here in
>>>>> Carmel
>>>> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs,
>>>>> here or in Canada.
>>>> But I knew the law...
>>>>
>>>> ...and you didn't.
>>>
>>> Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
>>> instead?"
>>>
>>> Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
>>> signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any
>>> very busy 4 lane city street.
>> Except the road just went from one lane each way to two. Unless
>> some people move to the right lane, that lane will remain empty?
>>
>> You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
>>> Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if you
>>> try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from the
>>> left lane (except in countries where you drive on the left, then
>>> it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
>> Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+ yards
>> before you GET to the roundabout.
>>> Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair costs,
>>> no questions asked. Which is why the police report found no fault
>>> in my wife's driving. You found a law and attempted to interpret
>>> it in a situation where it does not apply. You are lying through
>>> your teeth, and just want to harass.
>> I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
>> accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.

On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:20:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-05-07 12:56, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Alan
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago .. that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they were passed on the right by another
> >>>>>>>>>>>> driver, prior to getting to the traffic circle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That makes for there being at least two (2)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> faster vehicles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of our
> >>>>>>>>>>>> State's "Keep Right Except to Pass" reg.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Those drivers came up so quick that moving to the
> >>>>>>>>>>> right might have caused an accident. And, before
> >>>>>>>>>>> that drivers in front of us had slowed to make
> >>>>>>>>>>> right turns at the first roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It was
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited time to
> >>>>>>>>>>> make any lane decisions. She did what she thought
> >>>>>>>>>>> was safest, not knowing that a driver was in the
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrong lane for a left turn.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for drivers
> >>>>>>>>>>> to get in a 4 lane (very common) roundabout's
> >>>>>>>>>>> left lane and stay there when going straight on.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What she did is normal behavior. I have made
> >>>>>>>>>>> several videos showing this. Here is one:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
> >>>>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal, and
> >>>>>>>>>> if she'd been where she was supposed to be this
> >>>>>>>>>> accident would never have happened. You can't turn
> >>>>>>>>>> left into someone who is on your right.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
> >>>>>>>>>> have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT. She
> >>>>>>>>>> was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING the
> >>>>>>>>>> roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from the
> >>>>>>>>>> moment the road gained a second lane before the
> >>>>>>>>>> first of the two roundabouts.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And 4:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have the
> >>>>>>>>>> last reply.'
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of first-hand
> >>>>>>> knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system is no excuse.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
> >>>>>>> Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the street
> >>>>>>> widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is true, there is
> >>>>>>> right turn only lane there. She could not move to the
> >>>>>>> right the moment the street widened.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>
> And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
> >>>>>> where she could have moved right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either lane
> >>>>>>> is for straight through traffic. On a busy day the car in
> >>>>>>> front you as the road widens can shift to the right for a
> >>>>>>> right turn and start to slow. Yes, traffic was heavy and
> >>>>>>> slowing for a right turn at Springmill.
> >>>>>> A new "detail"!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th and
> >>>>>>> Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn only
> >>>>>>> lane where the street exits the Springmill roundabout.
> >>>>>>> Also note the white car pulling out of the side street
> >>>>>>> heading east and the very limited distance between
> >>>>>>> Springmill and Illinois. Also note the white car in the
> >>>>>>> left lane exiting the Illinois roundabout in very light
> >>>>>>> traffic, a common sight here. Also note the road signage
> >>>>>>> for Illinois indicating that either lane is for straight
> >>>>>>> through traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to
> >>>>>>> safely move to the right lane here. Past this
> >>>>>>> intersection, we were already in the left turn lane for
> >>>>>>> U.S. 31, the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
> >>>>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife from
> >>>>>> moving right...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little Shit?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>
> After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
> >>>>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time for
> >>>>>>> my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly after I
> >>>>>>> saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to see my medical
> >>>>>>> records too?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have been
> >>>>>>> in the right lane from the moment the road gained a
> >>>>>>> second lane before the first of the two roundabouts."
> >>>>>> She should have.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for exiting
> >>>>>> onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two lane road
> >>>>>> with a dotted line between them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the traffic
> >>>>>> your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND her.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both speeding
> >>>>>> and being aggressive...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...and you've proven neither.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your wife.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster than us
> >>>>> or being aggressive, but she was.
> >>>> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about aggression...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS the
> >>>>> street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your definition you
> >>>>> lied.
> >>>> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried that?
> >>>>> In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave the left
> >>>>> lane empty and create traffic congestion in the right lane.
> >>>>> No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary. The left lane is
> >>>>> available for straight on and that's what we did. The right
> >>>>> lane is for right turns and straight on. Clearly marked that
> >>>>> way in Google Earth. The other driver did not obey the lane
> >>>>> markings, we did.
> >>>>>
> >>>> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
> >>>>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video, local
> >>>>> traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we all stay
> >>>>> on the right except to pass on city streets. I doubt that
> >>>>> Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving on your streets
> >>>>> come September and will be interested in observing local
> >>>>> driving customs. Based on what we saw last year in Qubec and
> >>>>> Ontario I expect to observe exactly what we see here in
> >>>>> Carmel
> >>>> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving customs,
> >>>>> here or in Canada.
> >>>> But I knew the law...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...and you didn't.
> >>>
> >>> Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
> >>> instead?"
> >>>
> >>> Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
> >>> signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on any
> >>> very busy 4 lane city street.
> >> Except the road just went from one lane each way to two. Unless
> >> some people move to the right lane, that lane will remain empty?
> >>
> >> You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a thinker.
> >>> Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if you
> >>> try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from the
> >>> left lane (except in countries where you drive on the left, then
> >>> it's all reversed), you are making an illegal turn.
> >> Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+ yards
> >> before you GET to the roundabout.
> >>> Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair costs,
> >>> no questions asked. Which is why the police report found no fault
> >>> in my wife's driving. You found a law and attempted to interpret
> >>> it in a situation where it does not apply. You are lying through
> >>> your teeth, and just want to harass.
> >> I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
> >> accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
> Ignoring your lie.
> >>
> >> What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife could
> >> have taken...
> >>
> >> Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn only
> >> lane.
> >>
> >> ...that would have removed the conflict.
> >>
> >> And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof" of
> >> the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
> >>
> >> ...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did the
> >> police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED that
> >> "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
> Ignoring your lie.
> >>
> >> And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence has
> >> meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had moved to
> >> the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to pass her on
> >> the right)...
> >>
> >> ...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't mean
> >> anything.
> >
> > Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
> You weren't.
>
> You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
>
> I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
> >
> > BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required. The
> > officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote up the
> > results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to shift
> > right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not intending
> > to exit in the right lane with us.
> Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could there
> BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.

On 2023-05-08 16:23, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:20:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-05-07 12:56, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were passed on the right by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another driver, prior to getting to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic circle. That makes for there being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least two (2) faster vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right might have caused an accident. And,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that drivers in front of us had slowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make right turns at the first roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to make any lane decisions. She did what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> she thought was safest, not knowing that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver was in the wrong lane for a left
>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout's left lane and stay there when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> going straight on. What she did is normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. I have made several videos showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Here is one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> this accident would never have happened. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't turn left into someone who is on your
>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
>>>>>>>>>>>> have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
>>>>>>>>>>>> She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
>>>>>>>>>>>> the roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment the road gained a second lane before
>>>>>>>>>>>> the first of the two roundabouts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And 4:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the last reply.'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
>>>>>>>>> first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
>>>>>>>>> is no excuse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
>>>>>>>>> and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
>>>>>>>>> street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
>>>>>>>>> true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
>>>>>>>>> not move to the right the moment the street widened.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
>>>>>>>> where she could have moved right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either
>>>>>>>>> lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
>>>>>>>>> the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
>>>>>>>>> the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
>>>>>>>>> traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
>>>>>>>>> Springmill.
>>>>>>>> A new "detail"!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
>>>>>>>>> and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
>>>>>>>>> only lane where the street exits the Springmill
>>>>>>>>> roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
>>>>>>>>> the side street heading east and the very limited
>>>>>>>>> distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
>>>>>>>>> the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
>>>>>>>>> roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
>>>>>>>>> here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
>>>>>>>>> indicating that either lane is for straight through
>>>>>>>>> traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
>>>>>>>>> move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
>>>>>>>>> we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
>>>>>>>>> the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
>>>>>>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
>>>>>>>> from moving right...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
>>>>>>>> Shit?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
>>>>>>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
>>>>>>>>> for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
>>>>>>>>> after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
>>>>>>>>> see my medical records too?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
>>>>>>>>> been in the right lane from the moment the road
>>>>>>>>> gained a second lane before the first of the two
>>>>>>>>> roundabouts."
>>>>>>>> She should have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for
>>>>>>>> exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
>>>>>>>> lane road with a dotted line between them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
>>>>>>>> traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
>>>>>>>> her.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both
>>>>>>>> speeding and being aggressive...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and you've proven neither.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your
>>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
>>>>>>> than us or being aggressive, but she was.
>>>>>> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
>>>>>> aggression...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
>>>>>>> the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
>>>>>>> definition you lied.
>>>>>> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
>>>>>>> that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
>>>>>>> the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
>>>>>>> right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
>>>>>>> The left lane is available for straight on and that's
>>>>>>> what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
>>>>>>> straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
>>>>>>> other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
>>>>>>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
>>>>>>> local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
>>>>>>> all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
>>>>>>> doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
>>>>>>> on your streets come September and will be interested in
>>>>>>> observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
>>>>>>> last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
>>>>>>> exactly what we see here in Carmel
>>>>>> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
>>>>>>> customs, here or in Canada.
>>>>>> But I knew the law...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and you didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
>>>>> instead?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
>>>>> signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
>>>>> any very busy 4 lane city street.
>>>> Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
>>>> Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
>>>> remain empty?
>>>>
>>>> You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a
>>>> thinker.
>>>>> Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
>>>>> you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
>>>>> the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
>>>>> left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal
>>>>> turn.
>>>> Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
>>>> yards before you GET to the roundabout.
>>>>> Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
>>>>> costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
>>>>> found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
>>>>> attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
>>>>> apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
>>>>> harass.
>>>> I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
>>>> accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
>> Ignoring your lie.
>>>>
>>>> What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
>>>> could have taken...
>>>>
>>>> Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn
>>>> only lane.
>>>>
>>>> ...that would have removed the conflict.
>>>>
>>>> And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
>>>> of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
>>>>
>>>> ...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
>>>> the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
>>>> that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
>> Ignoring your lie.
>>>>
>>>> And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
>>>> has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
>>>> moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
>>>> pass her on the right)...
>>>>
>>>> ...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't
>>>> mean anything.
>>>
>>> Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
>> You weren't.
>>
>> You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
>>
>> I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
>>>
>>> BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
>>> The officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote
>>> up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
>>> shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
>>> intending to exit in the right lane with us.
>> Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
>> there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
>
> Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
> need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-05-08 16:23, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:20:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-07 12:56, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were passed on the right by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another driver, prior to getting to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic circle. That makes for there being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least two (2) faster vehicles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reg.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the right might have caused an accident. And,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before that drivers in front of us had slowed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to make right turns at the first roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> time to make any lane decisions. She did what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> she thought was safest, not knowing that a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> driver was in the wrong lane for a left
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> turn.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout's left lane and stay there when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> going straight on. What she did is normal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. I have made several videos showing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Here is one:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this accident would never have happened. You
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can't turn left into someone who is on your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> right.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the moment the road gained a second lane before
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the first of the two roundabouts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And 4:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the last reply.'
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
> >>>>>>>>> first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
> >>>>>>>>> is no excuse.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
> >>>>>>>>> and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
> >>>>>>>>> street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
> >>>>>>>>> true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
> >>>>>>>>> not move to the right the moment the street widened.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>
> And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
> >>>>>>>> where she could have moved right.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either
> >>>>>>>>> lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
> >>>>>>>>> the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
> >>>>>>>>> the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
> >>>>>>>>> traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
> >>>>>>>>> Springmill.
> >>>>>>>> A new "detail"!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
> >>>>>>>>> and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
> >>>>>>>>> only lane where the street exits the Springmill
> >>>>>>>>> roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
> >>>>>>>>> the side street heading east and the very limited
> >>>>>>>>> distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
> >>>>>>>>> the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
> >>>>>>>>> roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
> >>>>>>>>> here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
> >>>>>>>>> indicating that either lane is for straight through
> >>>>>>>>> traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
> >>>>>>>>> move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
> >>>>>>>>> we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
> >>>>>>>>> the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
> >>>>>>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
> >>>>>>>> from moving right...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
> >>>>>>>> Shit?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>
> After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
> >>>>>>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
> >>>>>>>>> for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
> >>>>>>>>> after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
> >>>>>>>>> see my medical records too?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
> >>>>>>>>> been in the right lane from the moment the road
> >>>>>>>>> gained a second lane before the first of the two
> >>>>>>>>> roundabouts."
> >>>>>>>> She should have.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for
> >>>>>>>> exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
> >>>>>>>> lane road with a dotted line between them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
> >>>>>>>> traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
> >>>>>>>> her.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both
> >>>>>>>> speeding and being aggressive...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...and you've proven neither.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your
> >>>>>>>> wife.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
> >>>>>>> than us or being aggressive, but she was.
> >>>>>> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
> >>>>>> aggression...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
> >>>>>>> the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
> >>>>>>> definition you lied.
> >>>>>> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
> >>>>>>> that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
> >>>>>>> the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
> >>>>>>> right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
> >>>>>>> The left lane is available for straight on and that's
> >>>>>>> what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
> >>>>>>> straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
> >>>>>>> other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
> >>>>>>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
> >>>>>>> local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
> >>>>>>> all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
> >>>>>>> doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
> >>>>>>> on your streets come September and will be interested in
> >>>>>>> observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
> >>>>>>> last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
> >>>>>>> exactly what we see here in Carmel
> >>>>>> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
> >>>>>>> customs, here or in Canada.
> >>>>>> But I knew the law...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...and you didn't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
> >>>>> instead?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
> >>>>> signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
> >>>>> any very busy 4 lane city street.
> >>>> Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
> >>>> Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
> >>>> remain empty?
> >>>>
> >>>> You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a
> >>>> thinker.
> >>>>> Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
> >>>>> you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
> >>>>> the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
> >>>>> left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal
> >>>>> turn.
> >>>> Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
> >>>> yards before you GET to the roundabout.
> >>>>> Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
> >>>>> costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
> >>>>> found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
> >>>>> attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
> >>>>> apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
> >>>>> harass.
> >>>> I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
> >>>> accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
> >> Ignoring your lie.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
> >>>> could have taken...
> >>>>
> >>>> Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn
> >>>> only lane.
> >>>>
> >>>> ...that would have removed the conflict.
> >>>>
> >>>> And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
> >>>> of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
> >>>> the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
> >>>> that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
> >> Ignoring your lie.
> >>>>
> >>>> And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
> >>>> has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
> >>>> moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
> >>>> pass her on the right)...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't
> >>>> mean anything.
> >>>
> >>> Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
> >> You weren't.
> >>
> >> You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
> >>
> >> I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
> >>>
> >>> BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
> >>> The officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote
> >>> up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
> >>> shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
> >>> intending to exit in the right lane with us.
> >> Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
> >> there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
> >
> > Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
> > need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
> How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy at all,
> Little Shit?
> >
> > And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
> You specifically denied it was the law...
>
> ...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...
>
> ...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire argument.
>
> You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication) it's
> not something one needs to do.
>
> The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
> would have been no accident in this case.
> > Even more so
> > since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
> > difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
> And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
> at hand.

On 2023-05-14 09:58, Thomas E. wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-05-08 16:23, Thomas E. wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:20:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-05-07 12:56, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were passed on the right by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another driver, prior to getting to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic circle. That makes for there being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least two (2) faster vehicles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right might have caused an accident. And,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that drivers in front of us had slowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make right turns at the first roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to make any lane decisions. She did what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she thought was safest, not knowing that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver was in the wrong lane for a left
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout's left lane and stay there when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going straight on. What she did is normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. I have made several videos showing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Here is one:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this accident would never have happened. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't turn left into someone who is on your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the roundabout.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment the road gained a second lane before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first of the two roundabouts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 4:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last reply.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
>>>>>>>>>>> is no excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
>>>>>>>>>>> and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
>>>>>>>>>>> street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
>>>>>>>>>>> true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
>>>>>>>>>>> not move to the right the moment the street widened.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
>>>>>>>>>> where she could have moved right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either
>>>>>>>>>>> lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
>>>>>>>>>>> the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
>>>>>>>>>>> the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>> traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
>>>>>>>>>>> Springmill.
>>>>>>>>>> A new "detail"!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
>>>>>>>>>>> and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
>>>>>>>>>>> only lane where the street exits the Springmill
>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
>>>>>>>>>>> the side street heading east and the very limited
>>>>>>>>>>> distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
>>>>>>>>>>> the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
>>>>>>>>>>> here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that either lane is for straight through
>>>>>>>>>>> traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
>>>>>>>>>>> move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
>>>>>>>>>>> we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
>>>>>>>>>>> the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
>>>>>>>>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
>>>>>>>>>> from moving right...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
>>>>>>>>>> Shit?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>> After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
>>>>>>>>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
>>>>>>>>>>> for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
>>>>>>>>>>> after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
>>>>>>>>>>> see my medical records too?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
>>>>>>>>>>> been in the right lane from the moment the road
>>>>>>>>>>> gained a second lane before the first of the two
>>>>>>>>>>> roundabouts."
>>>>>>>>>> She should have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for
>>>>>>>>>> exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
>>>>>>>>>> lane road with a dotted line between them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
>>>>>>>>>> traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
>>>>>>>>>> her.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both
>>>>>>>>>> speeding and being aggressive...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and you've proven neither.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your
>>>>>>>>>> wife.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
>>>>>>>>> than us or being aggressive, but she was.
>>>>>>>> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
>>>>>>>> aggression...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
>>>>>>>>> the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
>>>>>>>>> definition you lied.
>>>>>>>> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
>>>>>>>>> that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
>>>>>>>>> the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
>>>>>>>>> right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
>>>>>>>>> The left lane is available for straight on and that's
>>>>>>>>> what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
>>>>>>>>> straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
>>>>>>>>> other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
>>>>>>>>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
>>>>>>>>> local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
>>>>>>>>> all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
>>>>>>>>> doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
>>>>>>>>> on your streets come September and will be interested in
>>>>>>>>> observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
>>>>>>>>> last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
>>>>>>>>> exactly what we see here in Carmel
>>>>>>>> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
>>>>>>>>> customs, here or in Canada.
>>>>>>>> But I knew the law...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...and you didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
>>>>>>> instead?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
>>>>>>> signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
>>>>>>> any very busy 4 lane city street.
>>>>>> Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
>>>>>> Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
>>>>>> remain empty?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a
>>>>>> thinker.
>>>>>>> Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
>>>>>>> you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
>>>>>>> the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
>>>>>>> left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal
>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
>>>>>> yards before you GET to the roundabout.
>>>>>>> Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
>>>>>>> costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
>>>>>>> found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
>>>>>>> attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
>>>>>>> apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
>>>>>>> harass.
>>>>>> I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
>>>>>> accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
>>>> Ignoring your lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
>>>>>> could have taken...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn
>>>>>> only lane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...that would have removed the conflict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
>>>>>> of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
>>>>>> the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
>>>>>> that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
>>>> Ignoring your lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
>>>>>> has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
>>>>>> moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
>>>>>> pass her on the right)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't
>>>>>> mean anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
>>>> You weren't.
>>>>
>>>> You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
>>>>
>>>> I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
>>>>> The officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote
>>>>> up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
>>>>> shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
>>>>> intending to exit in the right lane with us.
>>>> Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
>>>> there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
>>>
>>> Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
>>> need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
>> How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy at all,
>> Little Shit?
>>>
>>> And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
>> You specifically denied it was the law...
>>
>> ...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...
>>
>> ...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire argument.
>>
>> You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication) it's
>> not something one needs to do.
>>
>> The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
>> would have been no accident in this case.
>>> Even more so
>>> since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
>>> difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
>> And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
>> at hand.
>
> You are lying. I never said it was not a law, but rather there are issues with your rigid insistence that it strictly applied.

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 1:07:33 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-05-14 09:58, Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:19:59 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2023-05-08 16:23, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:20:47 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-05-07 12:56, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 1:04:19 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-05-07 06:26, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 3:46:31 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2023-05-05 12:09, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 1:10:23 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-05-04 13:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-13 04:15, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 2:29:05 PM UTC-4,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-04-05 11:14, Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plus Tom had stated .. a long time ago ..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they were passed on the right by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another driver, prior to getting to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic circle. That makes for there being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least two (2) faster vehicles.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In local parlance, that would be because of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "left lane sitter", which runs afoul of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our State's "Keep Right Except to Pass"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reg.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true in highly dynamic morning traffic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those drivers came up so quick that moving to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right might have caused an accident. And,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before that drivers in front of us had slowed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make right turns at the first roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a straight 4 lane city street. It
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was 2 closely spaced roundabouts with limited
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to make any lane decisions. She did what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> she thought was safest, not knowing that a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver was in the wrong lane for a left
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, it is accepted practice here for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers to get in a 4 lane (very common)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roundabout's left lane and stay there when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going straight on. What she did is normal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. I have made several videos showing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Here is one:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/19K_M0HsroJltI7j6eydDARijzaXgvvyK/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> Complain all you want, what she did is not at all unusual.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Couple of points, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. "Not at all unusual" does mean it was legal,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if she'd been where she was supposed to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this accident would never have happened. You
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't turn left into someone who is on your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. No one has ever argued what lane she should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been in ONCE SHE REACHED THE ROUNDABOUT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> She was in the wrong lane on the road PRECEDING
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the roundabout.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. She should have been in the right lane from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment the road gained a second lane before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first of the two roundabouts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 4:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'End of discussion for my part. You can have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last reply.'
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, no and no. ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alan, you are lying yet again. Your lack of
> >>>>>>>>>>> first-hand knowledge of the Carmel roundabout system
> >>>>>>>>>>> is no excuse.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
> >>>>>>>>>>> and Springmill. Note the right turn lane where the
> >>>>>>>>>>> street widens to 2 lanes eastbound. Yes, this is
> >>>>>>>>>>> true, there is right turn only lane there. She could
> >>>>>>>>>>> not move to the right the moment the street widened.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TqCI36QWDyQwlzFoDvLu7yCYjMEzCrMd/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> And after the (very short) right turn only lane, there is 120 yards
> >>>>>>>>>> where she could have moved right.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Also note the road signage indicating that either
> >>>>>>>>>>> lane is for straight through traffic. On a busy day
> >>>>>>>>>>> the car in front you as the road widens can shift to
> >>>>>>>>>>> the right for a right turn and start to slow. Yes,
> >>>>>>>>>>> traffic was heavy and slowing for a right turn at
> >>>>>>>>>>> Springmill.
> >>>>>>>>>> A new "detail"!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> From Google Earth, 2016 (accident was 2017), 106th
> >>>>>>>>>>> and Illinois, the accident site. Note the right turn
> >>>>>>>>>>> only lane where the street exits the Springmill
> >>>>>>>>>>> roundabout. Also note the white car pulling out of
> >>>>>>>>>>> the side street heading east and the very limited
> >>>>>>>>>>> distance between Springmill and Illinois. Also note
> >>>>>>>>>>> the white car in the left lane exiting the Illinois
> >>>>>>>>>>> roundabout in very light traffic, a common sight
> >>>>>>>>>>> here. Also note the road signage for Illinois
> >>>>>>>>>>> indicating that either lane is for straight through
> >>>>>>>>>>> traffic. In heavy traffic there is no way to safely
> >>>>>>>>>>> move to the right lane here. Past this intersection,
> >>>>>>>>>>> we were already in the left turn lane for U.S. 31,
> >>>>>>>>>>> the next intersection, for our turn northeast.
> >>>>>>>>>> How can there be "heavy traffic preventing your wife
> >>>>>>>>>> from moving right...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ...when the road had been single lane?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where does this magical traffic appear from, Little
> >>>>>>>>>> Shit?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azjxqNFR3MdokeKGADEOEG_PURcRqigu/view?usp=share_link
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> After the accident investigation we took the left lane, turned
> >>>>>>>>>>> north, and still got to Riverview Hospital in time
> >>>>>>>>>>> for my hernia repair. I also note this was shortly
> >>>>>>>>>>> after I saw the surgeon and was diagnosed. Need to
> >>>>>>>>>>> see my medical records too?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Now, Liarboy, keep insisting that "She should have
> >>>>>>>>>>> been in the right lane from the moment the road
> >>>>>>>>>>> gained a second lane before the first of the two
> >>>>>>>>>>> roundabouts."
> >>>>>>>>>> She should have.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> After the (very short) right turn only lane for
> >>>>>>>>>> exiting onto Temple Drive, there was 120 yards of two
> >>>>>>>>>> lane road with a dotted line between them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> After that (very short) right turn lane, all the
> >>>>>>>>>> traffic your wife was holding up must have been BEHIND
> >>>>>>>>>> her.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And your claim was that the other driver was both
> >>>>>>>>>> speeding and being aggressive...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ...and you've proven neither.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All we know is that she was going faster than your
> >>>>>>>>>> wife.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I cannot prove that the other driver was going faster
> >>>>>>>>> than us or being aggressive, but she was.
> >>>>>>>> Except the officer explicitly disagreed about
> >>>>>>>> aggression...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...and she WAS going faster than you, Little Shit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You stated she needed to move to the right AS SOON AS
> >>>>>>>>> the street transitioned to 4 lanes from 2. By your
> >>>>>>>>> definition you lied.
> >>>>>>>> I didn't know about the (very short) right turn lane.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As for moving to the right, what if all drivers tried
> >>>>>>>>> that? In heavy traffic like that morning it would leave
> >>>>>>>>> the left lane empty and create traffic congestion in the
> >>>>>>>>> right lane. No, Alan, it's not practical or necessary.
> >>>>>>>>> The left lane is available for straight on and that's
> >>>>>>>>> what we did. The right lane is for right turns and
> >>>>>>>>> straight on. Clearly marked that way in Google Earth. The
> >>>>>>>>> other driver did not obey the lane markings, we did.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So you should leave the right lane empty instead?
> >>>>>>>>> The fact is, as shown to you in many minutes of video,
> >>>>>>>>> local traffic does not adhere to your insistence that we
> >>>>>>>>> all stay on the right except to pass on city streets. I
> >>>>>>>>> doubt that Vancouver does either. I'll likely be driving
> >>>>>>>>> on your streets come September and will be interested in
> >>>>>>>>> observing local driving customs. Based on what we saw
> >>>>>>>>> last year in Qubec and Ontario I expect to observe
> >>>>>>>>> exactly what we see here in Carmel
> >>>>>>>> "Others do it wrong, too." is never a defense.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, but you do not determine those local driving
> >>>>>>>>> customs, here or in Canada.
> >>>>>>>> But I knew the law...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...and you didn't.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Unbelievable: "So you should leave the right lane empty
> >>>>>>> instead?"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Really? No you idiot, you use both lanes per the roundabout
> >>>>>>> signage, "stay right except to pass" be damned. Just like on
> >>>>>>> any very busy 4 lane city street.
> >>>>>> Except the road just went from one lane each way to two.
> >>>>>> Unless some people move to the right lane, that lane will
> >>>>>> remain empty?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're not just a lying little shit, you're not much of a
> >>>>>> thinker.
> >>>>>>> Just like on any 4 lane street, or highway, or roundabout, if
> >>>>>>> you try a left turn from the right lane, or a right turn from
> >>>>>>> the left lane (except in countries where you drive on the
> >>>>>>> left, then it's all reversed), you are making an illegal
> >>>>>>> turn.
> >>>>>> Which has nothing to do with what should happen in the 120+
> >>>>>> yards before you GET to the roundabout.
> >>>>>>> Which is why the other driver's insurance paid our repair
> >>>>>>> costs, no questions asked. Which is why the police report
> >>>>>>> found no fault in my wife's driving. You found a law and
> >>>>>>> attempted to interpret it in a situation where it does not
> >>>>>>> apply. You are lying through your teeth, and just want to
> >>>>>>> harass.
> >>>>>> I never once claimed the other driver wasn't at fault for the
> >>>>>> accident as you are trying to imply, you lying Little Shit.
> >>>> Ignoring your lie.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What I pointed out was that there was an action your wife
> >>>>>> could have taken...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Moving into the right lane after the (very short) right-turn
> >>>>>> only lane.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...that would have removed the conflict.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And your initial reason for citing this accident was a "proof"
> >>>>>> of the dangers of speeding and aggressive driving...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...yet somehow you don't like it pointed out that not only did
> >>>>>> the police report not mention speeding, it EXPLICITLY STATED
> >>>>>> that "aggressive driving" was not a factor in that accident.
> >>>> Ignoring your lie.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And so you pick and choose what times that officer's silence
> >>>>>> has meaning (when it fails to mention that if your wife had
> >>>>>> moved to the right lane, there wouldn't have been an attempt to
> >>>>>> pass her on the right)...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...while simultaneously claiming that other silences don't
> >>>>>> mean anything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alan, first of all we are both well aware of the keep right law.
> >>>> You weren't.
> >>>>
> >>>> You insisted it didn't apply because you weren't on a highway.
> >>>>
> >>>> I literally had to explain Indiana law to you, Little Shit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BUT, in this case, on a very busy morning, it was not required.
> >>>>> The officer looked at the damage, took our statements and wrote
> >>>>> up the results. Given the traffic we were under no obligation to
> >>>>> shift right. We had NO way to know that the other driver was not
> >>>>> intending to exit in the right lane with us.
> >>>> Given that the road had just opened up to a second lane, how could
> >>>> there BE traffic there, you lying Little Shit.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe there was traffic in front of us already. Maybe there was no
> >>> need for us to move over into a busier lane than the one we were in.
> >> How could a lane which had only just come into existence be busy at all,
> >> Little Shit?
> >>>
> >>> And yes, I am well aware of the need to keep right.
> >> You specifically denied it was the law...
> >>
> >> ...and you certainly didn't teach it to your wife...
> >>
> >> ...and you've done nothing but insist there is no need this entire argument.
> >>
> >> You taken video showing how no one does it and so (by implication) it's
> >> not something one needs to do.
> >>
> >> The simple fact is that if your wife had been in the right lane, there
> >> would have been no accident in this case.
> >>> Even more so
> >>> since I learned from my hybrid cars just how much the fuel mileage
> >>> difference there is between 60 and 70. :)
> >> And yet another attempt to draw another discussion away from the issue
> >> at hand.
> >
> > You are lying. I never said it was not a law, but rather there are issues with your rigid insistence that it strictly applied.
> YOU are lying, Little Shit.
>
> You said it was a law that only applied on highways, and that the road
> you were on was not a highway.
> >
> > If you can prove the following I will admit you were correct:
> >
> > 1. The other driver was entitled to the right lane for a left turn.
> I never said she was entitled to a left turn from the right lane.
>
> Straw man.
> > 2. Traffic conditions at the time were such that a shift to the right lane was absolutely required on our part.
> The lane was, by force of it only coming into being right there,
> necessarily empty and there was (as you, yourself, have admitted) a car
> behind you that wanted to go faster than you were going.
> > 3. We were not entitled in any way to use the left lane to go straight on.
> Straw man.
> > 4. The investigating officer reported any fault on our part.
> Straw man.
> > 5. The investigating officer reported no fault on the other driver’s part.
> Straw man.
> > 6. Lane markings showed no possible use of the left lane for going straight on.
> Straw man.
>
> You used the incident as an example of speeding and aggressive driving
> and their bad consequences...
>
> ...only you can't show that either of those happened, and the latter was
> specifically ruled out by the officer.

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:32:00 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> [huge snip]

Egads, you’re still being so butthurt over this?

> Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I want the exact quote and source.

Well, you did admit long ago that your car were passed on the right prior to
getting to the circle (where said accident occurred). That demonstrates both
a “want” and an actual action to then satisfy said want.

-hh

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:18:09 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:32:00 AM UTC-4, Thomas E. wrote:
> > [huge snip]
>
> Egads, you’re still being so butthurt over this?
> > Please point out where I said a car behind us was wanting to pass. I want the exact quote and source.
> Well, you did admit long ago that your car were passed on the right prior to
> getting to the circle (where said accident occurred). That demonstrates both
> a “want” and an actual action to then satisfy said want.
>
> -hh

Please supply that exact reference